Boulder County officials have proposed new rules that would permanently limit the size of homes in unincorporated parts of the county, marking the county’s latest effort to try to curb rising housing costs and reduce the environmental impact of large homes.
The proposed changes, released for public comment Feb. 26, would amend the county’s site plan review process to prohibit new homes from exceeding the median size in their respective neighborhoods, with some exceptions. If approved, the rules would make permanent a restriction imposed last September, when county commissioners enacted a six-month moratorium on the construction of homes above the neighborhood median.
Before the moratorium, county regulations allowed new homes to be built up to 125% of the median size for a given neighborhood, with an option for special approval to go even larger. According to county commissioners, this policy has contributed to a steady increase in the size of homes in recent years. Last year, multiple applications were submitted for homes exceeding 6,000 square feet.
A key goal of the proposed rules is to help reduce the cost of housing, according to county commissioners. Larger, more expensive homes can increase property taxes for other, more modest homes in a neighborhood. Large homes can also contribute to higher overall housing costs.
By capping new homes at 100% of the neighborhood median, “you will see smaller houses than you would have otherwise, which will have a lower impact on the environment and can have effects on affordability and neighborhood character,” Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann told Boulder Reporting Lab.
Stolzmann said the changes are also intended to streamline the review process, making it more predictable and reducing application processing times.
The county may allow exemptions for properties with conservation easements that permit larger homes or for homes that include landmarked or protected, historic structures. Property owners looking to expand beyond the new limits for energy-efficiency retrofits could also qualify for an exemption. Homes lost in the 2021 Marshall Fire would be rebuilt under regulations in place at the time of the fire, following a separate disaster recovery review process.
The proposal is expected to face opposition from businesses in the home construction industry, including builders, architects and property owners who had planned to build homes larger than the new rules allow. Dozens of residents testified against the initial moratorium.
Some architects have raised concerns that tying home size limits to neighborhood medians benefits homeowners in wealthier areas, where houses tend to be larger. Because the policy allows for expansions relative to existing home sizes, those in more affluent neighborhoods can build even bigger homes, while residents in areas with smaller homes face stricter limits. Critics argue this disparity could accelerate property value appreciation for wealthier homeowners at a faster rate than for those who are less wealthy.
To address this, county planners have proposed a sliding scale that would allow existing homes in neighborhoods where the median home size is relatively small. Under the proposal, owners of homes 1,500 square feet or smaller could expand by up to 1,000 square feet or to the neighborhood median, whichever is greater — potentially exceeding the 100% cap. On the other end of the scale, homes up to 4,500 square feet would be limited to an additional 675 square feet or the median, whichever is greater.
Brian Fuentes, an architect with the local passive home design and build firm, said the change still favors homeowners with larger houses.
“They are only stopping big houses where there are not big houses now, which is essentially just putting the burden on people who have less,” Fuentes told Boulder Reporting Lab.
Instead of tying home size limits to neighborhood medians, he suggested the county adopt more granular zoning that sets limits based on factors such as road and water access. He also suggested imposing a fee on larger homes to help fund affordable housing.
A public hearing before the county Planning Commission is scheduled for March 19. The Board of County Commissioners will host a subsequent hearing before finalizing the rules.
All homes should have to expand beyond the new energy efficiency limits and require district geothermal heat pumps. The extra expense should be covered proportionally more by a large homes EE tax that will be distributed/rebated to the lower size homes. The energy savings computation over the full life of the geo/EE can be applied to financing mechanisms to improve affordability.
Correction: EE tax = Tax or fee whichever is cheaper to administrate.
We’ve been creeping into central planning for 50 years here, with questionable results.
I agree with Brian Fuentes. I believe that an across the board limit on home size be implemented. New homes require the use of everyone’s resources and we are far past the time when we can ignore this. As Mr. Fuentes points out, water use, as well as other resources, are of concern. We are at a critical crossroads in terms of the Earth’s carrying capacity and all inhabitants must do their part to help mitigate the encroaching lack of resources. I lived on the North shore of Lake Tahoe for 15 years and witnessed massive homes (many exceeding 8,000 square feet) that housed families of 4. I visited these homes and observed that many rooms were not even used. I would venture to say that it is quite likely that most of the large homes people want to build in Boulder County would belong to families of a similar size. It is time we stop building bigger and bigger and adjust our mindset to building what we need, not what we can afford. Thank you.
Let’s call this what it is. Absolute overreach and incredibly short sighted policy lead by an overzealous commission. It’s disinformation on a Trumpian scale to slather these policies in ‘affordable’ and ‘environmental’ language, Commissioners. For example, a 1500sf home – which they are allowing a ‘special bonus square footage bump’ – is actually a 750sf house with a full perimeter basement, as the County tabulates square footage. How many existing 750 sf homes (above grade) exist in the unincorporated areas? Very very few. Few will see this ‘special bonus’ as useful.
If affordability is really the goal, than a scarcity policy is the opposite of what should be pursued. If environmental goals are the goal, then why not implement strict fossil fuel restrictions, or simply cap max homes sizes at 4k or 5k square feet?
What this is is moralistic drivel brigading as championing of the normies. As a normie myself, I am not buying what you’re trying to sell, Commissioners. Smells more like BS.
Everyone should be able to build 5k square foot homes if they choose? Who exactly does that benefit?
If they choose, and zoning allows it, then yes, they should. Who are you to decide for them?
If the county wanted to limit house size – why not just do it evenly, across the board? This is even more discriminatory than previous version that only separated based on neighborhood- now, this proposal treats neighbors differently…
And if the intent is to establish affordable housing -why not work to change the tax rate on smaller homes? Or an affordable fee (like what the City has) is absolutely a better solution- forcing limits on property owners in the name of affordability is going to backfire- its policies like this that make people vote republican!
Probably has something to do with retaining neighborhood character. Do most residents champion the thought of a new neighbor building a mega mansion next to their house that is noticeably outsized compared to other houses in the area?
Bigger houses also mean more light(s) in the neighborhood at night: And more cars, more fumes and, interestingly, fewer children per household and fewer stars to view.